Hi! I had in mind starting a similar thread like this some days ago, but did not find the time, so thanks for doing that! On Mon, 2023-03-13 at 13:00:52 +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > On 3/13/23 02:42, Oskari Pirhonen wrote: > > "Usefulness" seems to be a hard sell for you, but perhaps you would > > reconsider it based on the historical relevance of C89? It was, after > > all, the first proper standard of the C language. If you don't want to > > promote C89 by having it mentioned alongside the others, perhaps you'd > > be open to the idea of adding a historical note? > I've been considering something like that for a long time. The > STANDARDS section (previously known as CONFORMING TO), is a mix of a > proper standards section, and what a HISTORY section should contain. > > It would be interesting to do a split, and inaugurate a HISTORY section. > For that section, I would keep any references to C89, since as you say > it's historically very relevant. Thus, I will revert the patch, and later apply some patches that move the info without discarding it. As long as the information is preserved, because as has been mentioned in the thread it is helpful when dealing with codebases that restrict to C89 for whatever reason, this seems good. :) And also to canvas for how long an interface has been around. > > Saying that C89 is > > obsolete in the note would be acceptable IMO, but not having any mention > > of C89 at all makes the manpages feel incomplete. Others have shared > > this sentiment when chatting with them online. For me what seemed rather confusing was that mentions of C89 were removed but there are references to stuff like «4.xBSD», so I guess that's why it felt incomplete to me too. (Not suggesting to remove those either! But I guess this might have planted the idea now. :) In any case, thanks for the revert! Regards, Guillem
